On Sep 25, 5:45 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> An interesting talk relevant to what constitutes an "observer moment".
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VQ1KI_Jh1Q&NR=1
> Brent

Very cool, thanks for posting. Of course, I think that his
observations are entirely consistent with my hypothesis. Our native
perception is a large scale view of many lesser scale sensorimotive
experiences. The subordinate (from our subjective point of view)
phenomena are higher frequency so that the top level awareness exists
through a low frequency synthesis or summary of them. It don't think
that this occurs localized only to a special, homonculous-like region
of the brain, so that it is not a literal summarizing computation, but
rather all of the relevant regions of the brain are actively
participating on a number of frequency ranges, just like what we do as
individuals every day can be summarized by looking at the behavior of
an entire population over a longer period of time.

What he is reaching for at the end I think is that energy is in fact a
subjective experience, and it is through the sensorimotive capacity to
signify and sequence it's experience, that the inference of time
arises. He is still thinking in terms of there being an actual
objective 'now' which our perception lags behind due to computation,
but that is not the case. We are not watching the pixels on the screen
change, or the screen refreshes, we are watching the images through
the screen as a whole, and that happens on a greater scale of time
relative to the pixels. It's not just a computational latency, it's a
measure of sensorimotive intensity: significance.

The qualities he mentions:

Sequence complexity
Number of events
Temporal frequence
Stimulus visability

These are the indicators of subjective significance in visual terms.
They are examples experiences with a high volume of sensorimotive
intensity. You can look at it as computational latency to process
heavier flows of data with more consequences as more neurons are
excited, but that is only if you compare the experience to an
inanimate object or break the perception down into it's constituent
isolated components. These obscure the universal principle at work
because the example we are using is this massive human sized
experience, sort of like trying to find out how carbonation bubbles
work by looking a giant, beach ball sized bubble. Our trillion-neuron
psyche is so huge that it warps and distorts and drifts slowly through
the air, distracting us from the intrinsic coherence and closure of
the bubble.  It wobbles and stretches, but it still does what the
champagne bubble does most of the time - maintains a coherent inertial
frame of perception, a frame from which 'time' arises, not one that
keeps up with any kind of external 'time'.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to